get_recommendations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'suggests movies,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not elaborate on behavior such as handling of no parameters, output format, or any limitations. The description is minimal and does not add rich context beyond what the schema already implies.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, complete sentence that is front-loaded and directly conveys the core function. There is no redundant or filler content, earning every word. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has three optional parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to specify return values. The description adequately covers the tool's primary purpose and inputs, and the output schema likely details the response structure. However, it leaves some behavioral nuances (e.g., what happens if all params are null) implied, though this is minor given the simplicity of the tool and presence of output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions and examples for each parameter (mood, genre, time_preference). The tool description merely echoes these parameter names without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance the understanding beyond the schema definitions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Suggests movies based on mood, genre, or time preferences.' It uses a specific verb ('suggests') and resource ('movies'), and the mention of mood, genre, and time preferences distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_now_showing and get_showtimes which focus on current listings or specific showtimes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when the user has mood, genre, or time preferences for movie recommendations. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names (get_showtimes, get_seat_map, book_seats, process_payment, get_now_showing) imply distinct use cases, and the description's focus on recommendations is sufficient to guide basic usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.